Recent settlements by government regulators and three large private employers mark a growing trend employers should take note of. Since announcing its first DEI-related False Claims Act (FCA) settlement in April 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has secured a series of multi-million-dollar settlements with major federal contractors, signaling that diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEI/I&D) initiatives remain a significant enforcement priority.
The DOJ’s first settlement involved IBM, which agreed to pay approximately $17 million to resolve allegations that certain diversity-focused employment practices violated anti-discrimination obligations incorporated into its federal contracts. Although IBM denied wrongdoing and admitted no liability, the settlement marked the first significant indication that the DOJ intended to use the FCA, rather than traditional employment statutes alone, to challenge the propriety of workplace DEI/I&D programs.
Since then, enforcement activity has intensified. In August 2026, Deloitte LLP and several subsidiaries agreed to pay $21.5 million to resolve allegations that the company failed to comply with anti-discrimination requirements contained in federal contracts, discriminated against employees and applicants on the basis of race and sex, and improperly sought reimbursement for costs associated with those practices. The resolution also settled related whistleblower claims brought under the FCA.
Most recently, in September, Accenture Federal Services (AFS), together with Accenture plc and Accenture LLP, agreed to pay $25 million to resolve DOJ allegations that the companies certified compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements while at the same time engaging in race- and sex-conscious employment practices. Approximately $11.6 million of the settlement was designated as restitution. Accenture denied the allegations and did not admit liability, stating that it cooperated with the investigation and resolved the matter to avoid the expense and uncertainty of prolonged litigation.
According to the DOJ, Accenture tracked the racial and sex composition of individual business units against internal demographic goals. The government alleged that these metrics influenced employment decisions, including entry-level hiring, promotion decisions, and succession planning. The DOJ further alleged that candidates who would advance demographic representation goals received additional visibility during promotion reviews and that certain mentoring, educational, leadership development, and training programs were restricted based on race or sex.
Taken together, these settlements reveal several recurring themes. The DOJ has focused on allegations that DEI/I&D initiatives improperly influenced workforce demographic goals, hiring and promotion, succession planning and staffing decisions, compensation-related evaluations, and access to mentorship, sponsorship, networking, leadership development, and training opportunities. Notably, the government's scrutiny extends beyond hiring decisions and reaches a broad range of workplace practices affecting advancement and career opportunities.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of these matters is the DOJ’s legal theory. Rather than relying solely on Title VII and other employment statutes, the government has asserted that federal contractors may face FCA liability when they certify compliance with anti-discrimination requirements while allegedly engaging in practices inconsistent with those obligations.
For employers, particularly federal contractors, the message is increasingly clear. Organizations should review workforce initiatives, demographic goals, compliance certifications, governance processes, promotion practices, and development programs to ensure that protected characteristics do not improperly influence employment decisions. While many diversity and inclusion initiatives can be lawfully structured, the recent IBM, Deloitte, and Accenture settlements demonstrate that the DOJ intends to continue using the FCA to test whether DEI/I&D practices align with anti-discrimination obligations and representations made to the federal government.
